PREMWATI  Vs UNION OF INDIA -Judgment by Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 13th December, 2023
Judgment pronounced on: 30th January, 2024
+ FAO 391/2014
PREMWATI ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ….. Respondent
Through: Mrs. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr.
Satya Sabharwal and Mr. Aman
Sahai, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant in terms of
Section 231 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 19872, assailing the
Impugned Order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi3, whereby the claim application No.
O.A.(IIu) No. 440/20114, filed under Section 16 of the RCT Act, was
dismissed.

123. Appeals.�(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every
order, not being an interlocutory order, of the Claims Tribunal, to the High Court having
jurisdiction over the place where the Bench is located.
(2) No appeal shall lie from an order passed by the Claims Tribunal with the consent of the parties.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date
of the order appealed against.
2 RCT Act
3 RCT
4 Claim application

FACTUAL BACKGROUND :

2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the appellant/claimant that on
18.08.2011, her husband Lala Ram was travelling from Faridabad

New Town Railway Station to Hazrat Nizamuddin station after
purchasing a journey ticket bearing No. 796551390 and having
boarded a local EMU train at New Town Faridabad; and that the
compartment of the train was heavily crowded and the deceased was
standing at the entrance gate of the compartment of the train. When
the train reached KM No.1505/27-26, the deceased on account of a
sudden jerk and jolt, fell down form the train and died. The claimant
filed a claim petition on 27.09.2011, seeking statutory compensation
of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the respondent railways.
3. During the course of proceedings before the RCT, the
respondent railways filed their Written Statements contesting the
claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation on the
ground that the deceased was not a Bonafide5 passenger and his death
was not due to any accidental fall amounting to an =untoward
Incident�6. The respondent further contended that the injuries
sustained by the applicant were due to his own criminal act and were
covered under self-inflicted injuries.

5 Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger means a person travelling with a valid pass
or ticket.
6 Section 2(n) of the RCT Act read with Section 123(C) of the Railways Act, 1989 (accidental
falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers)

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE RCT AND IMPUGNED
ORDER:

4. On the basis of pleadings, learned RCT framed the following
issues :
i. Whether the applicant proves that the death of the deceased had
occurred as a result of an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim
application ?

ii. Whether the respondent proves that the claim application is not
covered under the ambit of Sections 123, 124 and 124-A of the
Railways Act ?

iii. Whether the applicants proves that the deceased was a bonafide
passenger on the train in question on the relevant day ?

iv. Whether the applicant proves that she is the dependent of the
deceased within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways
Act?

v. To what order/relief ?

5. The learned RCT while appreciating the evidence on record
observed that since the deceased was having a valid journey ticket for
travel, he becomes a passenger within the meaning of the said
expression contained in the explanation to Section 124A7 of the
Railways Act. Further, regarding Issue Nos. 1 & 2, the RCT relied on
the statements made by the Station Master, Faridabad New Town,
during evidence (RW-1), which affirms the fact that the EMU train
No. 64061 arrived at Faridabad much later at 18:18 Hours and left the
station at 18:19 Hours, whereas the Station Master reported the
incident to the GRP (Government Railway Police) and the RPF
(Railway Protection Force) at 18:10 Hours on 18.08.2011, almost ten
minutes before when the train actually reached the station. The
aforesaid report stated that one male dead body was lying near Up
Main line, out of the track at KM 1505/27-25. The germane
observations of the RCT in this regard are reproduced as under:

7 Section 124A – Compensation on account of untoward incidents.
Explanation. � For the purposes of this section, -passenger. includes �
(a) a railway servant on duty : and
(b) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling , by a train carrying passengers, on any
date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

-9. Thus, as can be seen from the evidence of RW-1, who is
none else than the Station Master of Faridabad New Town coupled
with the entries in the official records maintained by him under Ex.
R-1 to R-3, the dead body was found even by 18.10 hours and the
same was reported to the Station master who, in turn, gave a
message to the RPF and the GRP at 18.10 hours. As seen from the
evidence of RW-1 coupled with the TSR Ex.R-1, the EMU train
No. 64061 arrived at New Town Faridabad much later at 18.18
hours and left at 18.19 hours. This circumstance of arrival of the
train much later after the noticing of the dead body at the spot and
making necessary entries relevant thereto in the official records
would clearly falsify the claim of the applicant that the deceased
was travelling by the said EMU train No. 64061 and he had an
accidental fall from the said train itself..

6. The learned RCT observed that the injuries in the post-mortem
are indicative of the fact that the deceased was hit by another train and
he did not die due to any accidental fall. The RCT vide Para 10 & 11
of the impugned order observed :

-10. It is further noticed in Ex. A- 13 that there were grease
marks present on various places on face and the body, which is
indicative of the deceased coming in close contact with the engine.
If really, it was a case of fall from the train, the deceased would
have fallen away from the track and the question of his sustaining
any grease marks may not arise.
The injuries noted in the post-mortem report include several
multiple fractures all over the body, which is indicative more of hit
by the train than of a fall from the train. A local passenger train,
which has just started of from the railway station and has not
crossed the railway premises, cannot be expected to run at such
high speed so as to cause, so many multiple fracture injuries all
over the body even if there was any fall from the train. Going by
the nature of the injuries and the opinion recorded by the Doctor
who conducted the post-mortem under Ex. A-13, the possibility of
the deceased having been hit by speeding train appears to be more
probable than the plea of an accidental fall from the compartment
of a train..

-11. In the DRM’s report, a conclusion is reached to the effect
that the deceased must have been run over by some train while he
was trying to cross the track instead of taking the foot-over bridge
to reach the platform. The said conclusion is based on the
investigation made by the RPF authorities arid the report of the

Inspector/RPF is also to the same effect. The possibility of the
deceased getting run over by some speeding train while trying to
cross the track in his bid to reach the platform instead of going by
the foot-over bridge appears to be more plausible in view of the
evidence available on record and in the absence of any material to
establish that the deceased had, in fact, any accidental fall from any
train..

7. The learned RCT concluded its finding by stating that the case
cited by the applicant Ghanashyam Patra and Others v. Union of
India and Another � 2013(2) T.A.C. 274, wherein, the Orissa High
Court allowed the appeal filed by the claimants against the order of
the tribunal, was not relevant to the present case as the oral evidence
of RW-1 along with the documentary evidence of Ex. R1-R3, clearly
falsify the claims of the applicant. Further, the RCT held that the
person claiming the compensation has to prove that the death of the
deceased was on account of an untoward incident. The relevant
observations are as under:

-13. Section 124-A of the Railways’, Act contemplates payment
of compensation on account of untoward incident. The expression
‘untoward incident’ is defined under Section 123(c) as meaning
inter alia (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passengers. Before claiming compensation under Section
124-A of the Act, the applicant has to necessarily establish that the
death of the deceased was on account of an untoward incident i.e.
due to accidental falling from a train. The burden squarely lies on
the applicant to show that the deceased had, in fact, an accidental
fall from the train which resulted in his death. The evidence
adduced by the applicant and the material placed / on record by her
as discussed supra, does not disclose that it was a case of accidental
fall from any train. . On the other hand, the material on record
would show that it could have been a case of run over by some
train while the deceased was trying to cross the track in a bid to
reach the platform instead of going by the foot-over bridge. Under
those circumstances, it must be held that the death of the deceased
was not due to any untoward incident within the meaning of
Section 124-A read with Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The
issues are answered accordingly..

8. Accordingly, holding Issue Nos. 1 & 2 against the claimant, the
claim petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 08.01.2014.
The appellant /claimant in the present appeal allude to the aspect that
there were some grease marks on the face of the deceased, which
clearly establishes the fact that the deceased fell down from the train.
Had it been the case of a run over by another train, the body parts of
the deceased would have been scattered all around. Further, the
appellant contests the fact that respondents did not lead any evidence
by producing any witness despite being given several opportunities.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by learned counsels for the rival parties at the Bar. I have
gone through the relevant records of this case as also the case-laws
cited at the Bar.
10. At the outset, I find that the present appeal is devoid of any
merits. Unfortunately, as it may appear, the facts established on the
record during the course of inquiry clearly raise a strong inference that
the deceased did not die due to an accidental fall from the train. RW-1
examined on behalf of the respondent/Railways clearly brought to the
fore that the EMU train number 64061 had arrived at Faridabad much
later at 18:18 hrs. and left the station at 18:19 hrs. whereas, the body
of the deceased was discovered at KM 1505/25-27 at about 18:10 hrs
and AW-1, wife/widow of the deceased was not an eye-witness to the
incident. Indeed, it is shown that the deceased possessed a valid
railway ticket, which was recovered during the jamatalashi by the

police. However, what spheres on the face of the record is that as per
the postmortem report, the deceased died due to a shock and
haemorrhage consequent to the injuries sustained on vital parts of the
body. The injuries sustained by the deceased were not probably due to
a fall from the train. The postmortem report brings out that the
deceased had suffered ante-mortem injuries in the nature of parietal
bone on the left side of his head, fracture of humerus right side at
three places above the elbow, so much so that two large grease-stained
abrasions were found on the back on the left side besides fracture of
multiple ribs on both sides on further dissection, laceration of pleurae
at multiple sites with laceration of both lungs, besides rupture of right
lobe of liver with collection of liquid blood in abdominal cavity and a
fracture of femur on right side at two places, one in the shaft of the
humerus and the other just above the knee. The nature of such injuries
exemplify the fact or either support the version of RW-1 that although
he had no personal knowledge of the accident, yet there was an
inference that the deceased had probably been hit or run over by a
train. It goes without saying that the dead body was found lying on the
railway track just near the foot-over bridge that goes on to suggest that
the deceased was trying to cross the railway line on foot by skidding
over the track and not using the foot over bridge. These conclusions
were drawn by the RPF authorities as well as arrived at in the DRM
report. Before parting with the appeal, reference can be made to
Union of India v. Rina Devi8, where the Supreme Court observed as
follows:

8 (2019) 3 SCC 572

-We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway
premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased
was a bonafide passenger for which claim for compensation could
be maintained..

11. In view of the afore-going discussions, this Court does not find
any illegality, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by learned
RCT in dismissing the claim.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
JANUARY 30, 2024
ck